Sterling Arms International R18 Mk3 Part 1 Review - Specifications and Initial Impressions
- Thread starter Bartok5
- Start date
My head hurts trying to decipher the actual point of your run-on sentence above. I simply cannot make sense of what you are trying to say here. Sorry. If you are asking why SAI is allowing AKDAS to market their rifle freely to the US and others? They're not. I was told that the partnership defines geographic markets for each company to avoid duplication of effort and needless competition. The USA is not currently within ADKAS's traditional market share. Besides which, all of that assumes that ADKAS can get their 100% Turkish (SAM) rifle running properly, which is apparently problematic at the present time due to tolerancing issues and out of spec parts. Not to worry however - the specific internal parts that are preventing AKDAS from assembling a functioning rifle are the same parts that SAI is having produced elsewhere. SAI intends to introduce the R18 Mk3 to the US market once they have satisfied the initial demands of the Canadian market and have reached a steady state for production and sales.
Yeah. Is that really too much to ask? This thread is intended to be a discussion of the technical merits of the rifle itself, not a repository for malcontents to sh#t-talk JR Cox and his business insterests. There's nothing stopping all of the naysayers, doubters and crap-talkers from starting their own poisonous thread instead of derailing mine. It used to be called common courtesy. Too bad it is no longer common....
Each to their own. As I said, you are free to believe whatever you like. I have given you all of the information that I have, in the same manner that it was presented to me. If there are falsehoods contained therein, then I have been lied to as much as you have. Unlike you however, I currently believe what I have been told, both for public consumption and in confidence. Perhaps I am the gullible one - time will tell as it always does.
Meanwhile, instead of searching for fly-sh#t amongst the pepper and trying to find fault with what JR Cox told you at TACCOM, why don't you just wait and let the rifle's performance speak for itself? I honestly don't know how some of you are going to reconcile your vehement dislike of JR Cox with your desire for a copy of the rifle when it performs as expected. That's your conundrum, I reckon.
Is this your first time on the internet? From everything I’ve read on this topic it seems.
1- you got caught
2- you’re running around calling everyone indecent and #### talkers because they’re calling you out.
I have no opinion on the matter other than it seems your opinion around these parts ain’t worth #### for much longer. Even if the threads keep getting nuked haha. Good luck! Maybe you can do some reviews on salad spinners.
SO HOT RIGHT NOW.
Okay....whatever....
The question is not the rifle, the question is honesty of the company.
"it is basically scaled down R18"
no it is not. It is AKDAS SA-9 with a different charging handle. It predates any SA collaboration. It has NOTHING to do with R18 MK3. Selling this as a slight modification of existing FRT for AR-180 is just not true. Why would he say this? Why would anyone just say things which are not true? To make sure we would believe that FRT is easy for 9mm version?
"with 9mm when you get between 10 and 11 inches you are at max velocity"
It just not true. It is either total incompetence or a deception. 9mm from longer barrels will get more velocity
http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/9luger.html
https://firearmwiki.com/wiki/9mm_Velocity_by_Barrel_Length
We can't possibly think that this talking point and more importantly design of the barrel was done by an accident. So it was intentional. But the story was made up to cover the unconventional barrel design? This is a simple blowback. Originally it is a very short sub-gun. Main spring and bolt mass were designed for the short barrel, making 18.6 inch probably made the pressure to stay in the barrel for too long and bolt was opening before bullet was getting out. So you need to make barrel shorter and bleed gas off faster, hence the barrel with these port at 11 inches.
But if you are being honest it would sound as if 9mm is a modification of a select fire sub-gun. Which is scary. So you have to coat it in deception to make it into "scaled down variant of existing FRT"? Why would you say these things?
"but we put ports and it acts as a good muzzle break". Thing longitudinal slits are good muzzle break... Right.
Why can't you just say "we found a good design by these fine people in Turkey and they made a great gun we are going to sell at a great price" Why do you have to twist and deceive and make up stories to make your offering to look different from what it is?
And if they do it all the time, how can you trust anything else they claim?
"it is basically scaled down R18"
"with 9mm when you get between 10 and 11 inches you are at max velocity"
It just not true. It is either total incompetence or a deception. 9mm from longer barrels will get more velocity
http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/9luger.html
https://firearmwiki.com/wiki/9mm_Velocity_by_Barrel_Length
We can't possibly think that this talking point and more importantly design of the barrel was done by an accident. So it was intentional. But the story was made up to cover the unconventional barrel design? This is a simple blowback. Originally it is a very short sub-gun. Main spring and bolt mass were designed for the short barrel, making 18.6 inch probably made the pressure to stay in the barrel for too long and bolt was opening before bullet was getting out. So you need to make barrel shorter and bleed gas off faster, hence the barrel with these port at 11 inches.
But if you are being honest it would sound as if 9mm is a modification of a select fire sub-gun. Which is scary. So you have to coat it in deception to make it into "scaled down variant of existing FRT"? Why would you say these things?
"but we put ports and it acts as a good muzzle break". Thing longitudinal slits are good muzzle break... Right.
Why can't you just say "we found a good design by these fine people in Turkey and they made a great gun we are going to sell at a great price" Why do you have to twist and deceive and make up stories to make your offering to look different from what it is?
And if they do it all the time, how can you trust anything else they claim?
1) Gun has never been fired, but it is going to be the most bestest bestest thing cuz my friend made it.
2) Who built it is being misrepresented, doesn't matter though because that isn't what it said on the brochure.
3) Demanding people agree with your opinion even though you will never entertain theirs.
Didn't mention JR, because I personally think it's irrelevant. Bartok, I don't know you but I still want to give you a baseline level of respect. Read the room dude. Some folks in here are acting like clowns, and they aren't just the guys who you want to censor.
At any rate, IBTL.
2) Who built it is being misrepresented, doesn't matter though because that isn't what it said on the brochure.
3) Demanding people agree with your opinion even though you will never entertain theirs.
Didn't mention JR, because I personally think it's irrelevant. Bartok, I don't know you but I still want to give you a baseline level of respect. Read the room dude. Some folks in here are acting like clowns, and they aren't just the guys who you want to censor.
At any rate, IBTL.
I dunno who's right or wrong. I'm not taking any side.. However, some technical thoughts...
- dwell time does exist in BB systems, it's amount of time pressure is present. Same as with gas systems, but in gas system only pressure from returning gas matters because it is used to cycle carrier/bolt.
- most BB systems designed for reasonable difference in barrel lengths, thus even in 18" bolt or bolt/carrier combo should be heavy enough to delay actual movement back and opening the chamber until the moment when projectile left. However we don't know how this very PCC was designed, maybe bolt is indeed too light to take 18" - only designer knows or tests could tell.
- I wonder if this Akdas SAM is original design, then how with upper charging handle can operator do FA? Yeah, I know even Stoner was against it, but still... this feature lives on..
- dwell time does exist in BB systems, it's amount of time pressure is present. Same as with gas systems, but in gas system only pressure from returning gas matters because it is used to cycle carrier/bolt.
- most BB systems designed for reasonable difference in barrel lengths, thus even in 18" bolt or bolt/carrier combo should be heavy enough to delay actual movement back and opening the chamber until the moment when projectile left. However we don't know how this very PCC was designed, maybe bolt is indeed too light to take 18" - only designer knows or tests could tell.
- I wonder if this Akdas SAM is original design, then how with upper charging handle can operator do FA? Yeah, I know even Stoner was against it, but still... this feature lives on..
Last edited:
I can see your point based on what you believe has been said concerning the R9. What you describe above is not consistent with what I was told about the R9 origins (eg. the AKDAS SA9 design was mostly complete when the partnership formed). SAI changed the esthetics and added Side-Charging to the Upper Receiver, plus re-enginered the Lower to increase the difficulty of full-auto conversion. That, and the counter-bored 18.5" Barrel were apparently the majority of SAI's input to the R9. I know far less about the R9 than the R18, as I am much more interested in the rifle.
We will simply have to agree to disagree when it comes to the motivations and trustworthiness of the Company and the personalities involved. Nobody seems to have had any complaints whatsoever about their after-sales Customer Supporrt associated with the R18 Mk2, so there is no reason to expect that the Mk3 will be any different.
I wouldn't bother. This thread has devolved into a low-information tit-for-tat concerning the trustworthiness of the parent company and the key individual involved. It has very little to do with the rifle itself any longer.
I will publish a new thread for the R18 Mk3 Part 2 Review once I have a functional rifle for live fire evaluation. There you will see group sizes with different types of ammo, reliability results and durability observations. Hopefully a fresh start will avoid some of the non-constructive "baggage" that this thread has attracted to date.
"Dimension"? If you say so.....
If you only wanted to hear positive things about the Preview of this gun, you should have just hung out with your friend for an afternoon.
Personally I'd be interested in how it shoots. Not a huge fan of it's looks, or the AR180 style action, but then again, a lot of the guns in my safe were never on my "must have" list, but I slowly came around. Almost like opinions are allowed to change... and its.... okay?!?
Anyways, back to daycare.
Personally I'd be interested in how it shoots. Not a huge fan of it's looks, or the AR180 style action, but then again, a lot of the guns in my safe were never on my "must have" list, but I slowly came around. Almost like opinions are allowed to change... and its.... okay?!?
Anyways, back to daycare.
Thunderhog
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- East Kootneys
Can we all just let the guy talk about this great new rifle and try to enjoy it once it becomes fruition?
I do not see a conflict or a problem at all.
I'll be happy to buy one when available. My BCL Siberian was a huge let down for me. This will be my last try at the AR180B platform, and I am confident it will be an awesome one once the bugs (if any), are worked out.
I do not see a conflict or a problem at all.
I'll be happy to buy one when available. My BCL Siberian was a huge let down for me. This will be my last try at the AR180B platform, and I am confident it will be an awesome one once the bugs (if any), are worked out.
